What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

6. Dwight Eisenhower

The Good

When Ike took over the Presidency in 1953, he came in as a Republican, but he was not part of the Republican establishment. Neither was he connected in any way to the conservative base, which was dominated at the time by McCarthyites convinced in conspiracy theories. The main one of these was that FDR had sold out China at the Yalta agreement because he was either a Communist himself or misled by Communists inside the State Department. So certain was Henry Luce (publisher of Time Magazine) that this happened that he bragged about the "secrets" that the new administration would reveal, and that it would destroy FDR, Truman, and the Democrats once and for all.

Suffice to say that Eisenhower disappointed Luce and all of the conservatives. He refused to investigate the State Department. Further, he refused McCarthy's attempts to bring the army to heel, which led directly to the Army/McCarthy hearings and McCarthy's downfall (which made Ike very happy.) Ike came to the White House as his own man, beholden to nobody, and governed that way. Though a fiscal conservative who put his faith in General Motors, he expanded Social Security and federal spending on the infrastructure. Ike confounded conservatives by ending the Korean War and negotiating an "Open Skies" nuclear agreement with the Soviets, the forerunner of the later SALT and ABM agreements. Ike disappointed the British, French, and Israelis by preventing them from taking over Suez in 1956. Though this was heavily criticized for years afterward, most historians now believe it was the correct decision, as any alternative would have forced the Soviet Union to act to defend Egypt.

Eisenhower did not approve of Brown vs. Board of Education, and cursed his appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice. This was not because Ike was a racist, but because he believed that the South was not ready for integration, and that it would lead to civil strife. He was correct in this assessment. Despite his disapproval, Ike didn't pull an Andy Jackson; he respected the law and was determined to carry it out. During the Little Rock crisis of 1956, Eisenhower defied his own advisors and sent federal troops to force the integration of Central High School.

Economic times were good during most of Eisenhower's 8 years (though it ended with a recession). Wisely, Ike didn't tinker with things when they were going well.

The Bad

Eisenhower enunciated the Domino Theory, which effectively reversed the Truman Doctrine of Containment (more on that later.) This was a confrontation between two brilliant minds in the State Department: George Kennan and John Foster Dulles. The immediate effects of this change in policy would be the support of an unstable regime in South Vietnam following the demise of the French at Dien Bien Phu. This would lead to disastrous results during the decade after Ike's reign. Dulles, who became Ike's Secretary of State, must also be held responsible for encouraging Hungary to revolt against the Soviet Union. The Hungarians honestly believed that the US would come to their aid, which was impossible. They were crushed, and Ike and Dulles were forced to reconsider their foreign policy.

But the worst decision that Ike ever made was little known at the time- it received almost no attention from the American media. This was the forced removal by the CIA of President Mossedegh in Iran and his replacement with Mohammad Reza Shah, the son of the deposed Reza Shah. Ike and his advisors (notably Allen Dulles of the CIA, John Foster's brother) believed this was a simple case of getting rid of a communist threat. They paid no attention to the fact that Mossedegh was a socialist, not a Communist, who opposed the Soviet Union and who was freely elected by the Iranian people, seeking a democracy and ready for it (unheard of in the Middle East). The damage this would do to our position in the Middle East (and particularly in Iran) has not ended to this day. While few Americans discuss it or are even aware of it, all Iranians know about it- it is their central reason for hating the United States. But this was not recognized until the Iranian Revolution of 1979. It's reasonable to assume that Eisenhower went to his death completely unaware of the ultimate repercussions of his act.

Analysis

Though I listed some of Eisenhower's worst mistakes, I don't really hold them against him, because unlike other foreign policy disasters (like the invasion of Iraq) they are far easier to criticize in hindsight. One would have to be Nostradamus to predict that support of South Vietnam and the Shah would ultimately lead to such disasters for the United States. They seemed reasonable enough at the time. Ike was a steady hand and an excellent President who managed the country very well through perhaps the most productive decade in our history.

 
...[SIZE=10.5pt]A Few Notes:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]James Polk better not make an appearance until you are really close to the single digits. He is the sole one term President that should be in contention for best president. Lincoln isn’t quite a one term guy, but even if you wanted throw him in that tier, his overpowering greatness vaults him to the top no matter how long he served.[/SIZE]

...
This is happening, isn't it.

Can we get a preview of why the hell this is? > :loco:

 
...

A Few Notes:

James Polk better not make an appearance until you are really close to the single digits. He is the sole one term President that should be in contention for best president. Lincoln isnt quite a one term guy, but even if you wanted throw him in that tier, his overpowering greatness vaults him to the top no matter how long he served....
This is happening, isn't it.

Can we get a preview of why the hell this is? > :loco:
Polk set four clearly defined goals for his presidency. He said he would do those and then get out. And that's exactly what he did.

 
...[SIZE=10.5pt]A Few Notes:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]James Polk better not make an appearance until you are really close to the single digits. He is the sole one term President that should be in contention for best president. Lincoln isn’t quite a one term guy, but even if you wanted throw him in that tier, his overpowering greatness vaults him to the top no matter how long he served.[/SIZE]

...
This is happening, isn't it.

Can we get a preview of why the hell this is? > :loco:
Pro - High school namesake is home to a living legend.

 
...[SIZE=10.5pt]A Few Notes:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]James Polk better not make an appearance until you are really close to the single digits. He is the sole one term President that should be in contention for best president. Lincoln isn’t quite a one term guy, but even if you wanted throw him in that tier, his overpowering greatness vaults him to the top no matter how long he served.[/SIZE]

...
This is happening, isn't it.

Can we get a preview of why the hell this is? > :loco:
Pro - High school namesake is home to a living legend.
Well at least that fits with the BCS nature of the rankings so far.

 
I don't understand, Saints. What is your question?
Has Polk shown up yet?
Hmm. Let me check.Polk? Hey, Polk? Anybody seen him?

No he's not around. Should be here pretty soon though.
Hopefully you have the Wilmot Proviso handy and a good explanation why a guy who brought on the Civil War rates so high.

Query: why is it California did not split along the Mo Compromise line? Was there a plebiscite before that was allowed in KS?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
5. James K. Polk

The Good

Polk peacefully settled the Oregon border with Canada. He attempted to peacefully settle the question of Texas with Mexico, but when that failed and Mexico declared war on the US, Polk successfully prosecuted that war, and the United States won most of the southwest as a result. He established a treasury system which lasted until 1913. As was pointed out, Polk set major goals for his Presidency, accomplished them all, then quit.

The Bad

Saints' criticism is correct to a point: by claiming California and annexing the southwest, the United States took an almost inevitable turn toward the Civil War. But it's a little over the top to blame Polk for this. Polk didn't write the Wilmot Proviso. The Missouri Compromise had only delayed the question of north vs. south for a generation; a day of reckoning could not be stopped. The north would never have accepted simply extending the Missouri line all the way to the west coast because that would have put almost all of the added states into the Southern sphere of influence.

Analysis

Polk is our most underrated President and I think, in terms of efficiency alone, he belongs very high on this list. Obviously he is one of the most consequential Presidents as well. And I also have a selfish reason for praising Polk. I am a Californian born and bred, and I unabashedly declare this to be our greatest state. It is the most wondrous, the most beautiful. I have traveled around the world and found no rival to the sheer awesomeness of Yosemite Valley, no city that sparkles like the San Francisco bay at night, no drive that is as splendid as driving through the Napa Valley, and few beaches that can match Southern California. We have the sunshine of Florida without the humidity, and we are the most populated and most powerful state. Thank you, James Polk!

 
. It is the most wondrous, the most beautiful. I have traveled around the world and found no rival to the sheer awesomeness of Yosemite Valley, no city that sparkles like the San Francisco bay at night, no drive that is as splendid as driving through the Napa Valley, and few beaches that can match Southern California
I have said this before. You need to get out more

 
...[SIZE=10.5pt]A Few Notes:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]James Polk better not make an appearance until you are really close to the single digits. He is the sole one term President that should be in contention for best president. Lincoln isn’t quite a one term guy, but even if you wanted throw him in that tier, his overpowering greatness vaults him to the top no matter how long he served.[/SIZE]

...
This is happening, isn't it.

Can we get a preview of why the hell this is? > :loco:
As I recall from a long ago history class, Polk made some specific promises on what intended to accomplish during his Presidency in his inauguration speech and he accomplished all of his goals.

 
Polk also made a run at Cuba, offered a load of money to Spain for it. It was going to be slave. Polk himself was an active slave holder and had plantations in TN & MS.

The north taking the prime part of the war with Mexico and making it free even though it was below the 1820 line and then Polk rejecting the Wilmot Proviso pretty much killed whatever hope there was of peace. He was the opposite of Fillmore who was always conscious of preserving the peace. Holding to the 1820 compromise would have gone a long way towards doing that. Admittedly Cuba could have balanced things but Polk was playing chicken with a bloody civil war. He and Buchanan belong in the bottom 10.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Polk also made a run at Cuba, offered a load of money to Spain for it.

The north taking the prime part of the war with Mexico and making it free even though it was below the 1820 line and then Polk rejecting the Wilmot Proviso pretty much killed whatever hope there was of peace. He was the opposite of Fillmore who was always conscious of preserving the peace. Holding to the 1820 compromise would have gone a long way towards doing that. Admittedly Cuba could have balanced things but Polk was playing chicken with a bloody civil war. He and Buchanan belong in the bottom 10.
Wow. I think you're completely off your rocker here, but OK.

 
John Bender said:
Reagan gets so much traction because if conservatives were really honest with themselves, they'd admit he's the only solid republican Prez of their lifetime.
This almost entirely explains the reverence, I think.
Most likely.
Depends on what your frame of reference for a "lifetime" is. You don't think the same thing could be said of Democrats and Clinton?
 
John Bender said:
Reagan gets so much traction because if conservatives were really honest with themselves, they'd admit he's the only solid republican Prez of their lifetime.
This almost entirely explains the reverence, I think.
Most likely.
Depends on what your frame of reference for a "lifetime" is. You don't think the same thing could be said of Democrats and Clinton?
Obama and Clinton in the past 20 years.

 
My criteria includes helping lead the US into a destructive civil war as a negative and those who tried to preserve the peace as a positive.
So you are willing to condemn Eisenhower as a bad President because his actions led to the Vietnam War and the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Even though there was no way for him to predict it?

It's just not good logic to me. The United States needed to take Texas and California and Polk recognized that. The North wouldn't have agreed to an extension of the Missouri Compromise, and nothing Polk did was going to stop a confrontation from happening. So to blame Polk for the confrontation makes no sense. But it does make sense to recognize his achievements within the scope of his Presidency.

 
I love California but that's an imperialist war-wonger at #5. Oh, and he lowered tariffs and revived the Treasury.

 
I love California but that's an imperialist war-wonger at #5. Oh, and he lowered tariffs and revived the Treasury.
I should point out that I don't see anything wrong with imperialism, per se. Since the second half of the 20th century, it's come to be a dirty word, because at times it has encompassed racism and mistreatment or genocide of indigenous peoples. But that was not it's central purpose. I believe the world is better off that the United States and not Mexico controls the southwest and California.

 
Tim it cracks me up you pull down TJ for not doing enough for civil rights (in 1800!) but Polk can try to take slavery to Cuba, the west coast and the whole southwest while running two active plantations and he comes in at 5. Great stuff.

 
What was Ike's big accomplishment, other than not screwing things up? I mean, the guy walked into the perfect situation - the U.S. after WWII, victorious on the world stage with no damage to the homeland, flush with money, booming middle class, the start of the easypeazy 50's... It was the best 10 or 15 years to be an American.

Not saying he wasn't a good President. Just don't know about #6. At this level I think you need to have navigated the country through a crisis or done something extraordinarily visionary to build up the country. I guess you could say IKe did some of the latter (interstate road system) but I wouldn't call that visionary. Whoever was President during those years would have done the same.

Over-rated. Clap clap, clap clap clap. Over-rated. Clap clap, clap clap clap.

 
Tim it cracks me up you pull down TJ for not doing enough for civil rights (in 1800!) but Polk can try to take slavery to Cuba, the west coast and the whole southwest while running two active plantations and he comes in at 5. Great stuff.
The reason that Jefferson didn't make the top 10 is not because of my civil rights criticism but because his Presidency simply wasn't consequential enough. The Louisiana Purchase was awesome, but it's offset by some of his failures.

That being said, I do believe that the civil rights criticism I made is fair against Jefferson for two reasons: first, because he himself knew that slavery was wrong and destructive and would hurt his native Virginia in the long run, but as President he took no steps to resolve the issue. Second, because his attitude toward Toussaint L'Overture was highly hypocritical in light of all of his stated Jacobin beliefs, and this was noted by his critics at the time.

 
What was Ike's big accomplishment, other than not screwing things up? I mean, the guy walked into the perfect situation - the U.S. after WWII, victorious on the world stage with no damage to the homeland, flush with money, booming middle class, the start of the easypeazy 50's... It was the best 10 or 15 years to be an American.

Not saying he wasn't a good President. Just don't know about #6. At this level I think you need to have navigated the country through a crisis or done something extraordinarily visionary to build up the country. I guess you could say IKe did some of the latter (interstate road system) but I wouldn't call that visionary. Whoever was President during those years would have done the same.

Over-rated. Clap clap, clap clap clap. Over-rated. Clap clap, clap clap clap.
In Ike's case, it's what he DIDN'T do that makes him great: specifically, he didn't accept the conservative agenda at the time. He rejected it, and negotiated with the Soviet Union rather than threaten war. He also confronted, and eventually dispatched, Joseph McCarthy. And Ike's response to civil rights issues, in which he supported the law despite personal misgivings, should not be overlooked.

 
Tim it cracks me up you pull down TJ for not doing enough for civil rights (in 1800!) but Polk can try to take slavery to Cuba, the west coast and the whole southwest while running two active plantations and he comes in at 5. Great stuff.
The reason that Jefferson didn't make the top 10 is not because of my civil rights criticism but because his Presidency simply wasn't consequential enough. The Louisiana Purchase was awesome, but it's offset by some of his failures.

That being said, I do believe that the civil rights criticism I made is fair against Jefferson for two reasons: first, because he himself knew that slavery was wrong and destructive and would hurt his native Virginia in the long run, but as President he took no steps to resolve the issue. Second, because his attitude toward Toussaint L'Overture was highly hypocritical in light of all of his stated Jacobin beliefs, and this was noted by his critics at the time.
So TJ gets dinged because he knew better and was an intellectual giant but didn't expand slavery; but Polk was a slaver who was too ignorant to do better and expanded its reach to double?

Maybe you have a better point on Haiti, but let's remember what the French did for the US, they were our ally then, sometimes our only one.

- Side note, I know someone who claims her family (or one branch of it) got here from Haiti and she's still pssd. She's also a tad, wee bit, slightly racist. This goes on, people who walk around in 2015 saying, 'hey the wrong side won in Haiti.'

 
Last edited by a moderator:
4. Theodore Roosevelt

The Good

Began the Progressive era. Broke up the trusts, regulated the railroads, food and drink (the "Square Deal"). Made conservation a top priority, established several national parks. Established the Panama Canal, altering trade in the Americas forever. Brokered a peace between Russia and Japan. Signed the Gentleman's Agreement with Japan which ended restrictions on Japanese immigration until 1924. Teddy was a master at diplomacy- "speak softly and carry a big stick."

,

The Bad

Despite the Gentleman's Agreement, Roosevelt spoke out against immigration, and was frankly a nativist- though most of his public speeches on this issue were made both before and after his Presidency. Although he invited Booker T. Washington to the White House, Roosevelt did little to alleviate the plight of African-Americans during his presidency.

Analysis

Overall, one of our very greatest Presidents. I honestly had trouble coming up with flaws. Interestingly enough, he seems to be overlooked by modern day Republicans. Lincoln always get mentioned, and of course Reagan, and sometimes Ike- but why not Teddy? Deserves more accolades, IMO.

 
What was Ike's big accomplishment, other than not screwing things up? I mean, the guy walked into the perfect situation - the U.S. after WWII, victorious on the world stage with no damage to the homeland, flush with money, booming middle class, the start of the easypeazy 50's... It was the best 10 or 15 years to be an American.

Not saying he wasn't a good President. Just don't know about #6. At this level I think you need to have navigated the country through a crisis or done something extraordinarily visionary to build up the country. I guess you could say IKe did some of the latter (interstate road system) but I wouldn't call that visionary. Whoever was President during those years would have done the same.

Over-rated. Clap clap, clap clap clap. Over-rated. Clap clap, clap clap clap.
He did go through a crisis, many of them, in fact. He ended the Korean War, paired with the Soviets to end the Suez crisis, and fought off McCarthyism. The interstate highway system really was visionary and laid the groundwork for continued American prosperity. And it was program based on what Ike saw in the war in Germany and appreciated as a logistical miracle. The prosperity that he enjoyed was because he went with an unbalanced strategy of containment, choosing to rely on nukes to keep the Russians at bay, rather than dumping tons of money and men into conventional arms like Truman did before and Kennedy would after. Ike was a very shrewd individual. His farewell address and his concerns about the military industrial complex should have been paid much more heed by future administrations.

That said, Polk is by far the best.

 
Polk also made a run at Cuba, offered a load of money to Spain for it. It was going to be slave. Polk himself was an active slave holder and had plantations in TN & MS.

The north taking the prime part of the war with Mexico and making it free even though it was below the 1820 line and then Polk rejecting the Wilmot Proviso pretty much killed whatever hope there was of peace. He was the opposite of Fillmore who was always conscious of preserving the peace. Holding to the 1820 compromise would have gone a long way towards doing that. Admittedly Cuba could have balanced things but Polk was playing chicken with a bloody civil war. He and Buchanan belong in the bottom 10.
Is there any way this country stops slavery without a bloody civil war? Continually giving concessions to slave owners is not exactly the best of ideas.

 
Polk also made a run at Cuba, offered a load of money to Spain for it. It was going to be slave. Polk himself was an active slave holder and had plantations in TN & MS.

The north taking the prime part of the war with Mexico and making it free even though it was below the 1820 line and then Polk rejecting the Wilmot Proviso pretty much killed whatever hope there was of peace. He was the opposite of Fillmore who was always conscious of preserving the peace. Holding to the 1820 compromise would have gone a long way towards doing that. Admittedly Cuba could have balanced things but Polk was playing chicken with a bloody civil war. He and Buchanan belong in the bottom 10.
No Polk belongs in the top 10. I'm not so sure he belongs above Reagan and Monroe, but he is a single digiter.

 
4. Theodore Roosevelt

The Good

Began the Progressive era. Broke up the trusts, regulated the railroads, food and drink (the "Square Deal"). Made conservation a top priority, established several national parks. Established the Panama Canal, altering trade in the Americas forever. Brokered a peace between Russia and Japan. Signed the Gentleman's Agreement with Japan which ended restrictions on Japanese immigration until 1924. Teddy was a master at diplomacy- "speak softly and carry a big stick."

,

The Bad

Despite the Gentleman's Agreement, Roosevelt spoke out against immigration, and was frankly a nativist- though most of his public speeches on this issue were made both before and after his Presidency. Although he invited Booker T. Washington to the White House, Roosevelt did little to alleviate the plight of African-Americans during his presidency.

Analysis

Overall, one of our very greatest Presidents. I honestly had trouble coming up with flaws. Interestingly enough, he seems to be overlooked by modern day Republicans. Lincoln always get mentioned, and of course Reagan, and sometimes Ike- but why not Teddy? Deserves more accolades, IMO.
So, Lincoln, Washington and ............... Truman. Interesting that you would put Truman in the top 3. I wouldn't. And I wouldn't put him over Teddy.

You are going to have an issue with Truman that is going to light this thread up though. For all your hatred of Jackson and Wilson and guys that killed Indians (except for some reason Jefferson) and civil rights stuff and so on, Truman murdered innocents the likes of which no President ever did before or since. It's a hard sell. Not impossible. But not easy without debate.

 
The usual justification I've heard for Nagasaki & Hiroshima is that they saved thousands of American lives. Not saying I personally believe that justifies it, but that's what I've often heard/read when folks back Truman on this one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Polk also made a run at Cuba, offered a load of money to Spain for it. It was going to be slave. Polk himself was an active slave holder and had plantations in TN & MS.

The north taking the prime part of the war with Mexico and making it free even though it was below the 1820 line and then Polk rejecting the Wilmot Proviso pretty much killed whatever hope there was of peace. He was the opposite of Fillmore who was always conscious of preserving the peace. Holding to the 1820 compromise would have gone a long way towards doing that. Admittedly Cuba could have balanced things but Polk was playing chicken with a bloody civil war. He and Buchanan belong in the bottom 10.
Is there any way this country stops slavery without a bloody civil war? Continually giving concessions to slave owners is not exactly the best of ideas.
No other country had to have a bloody civil war to stop slavery.

 
The usual justification I've heard for Nagasaki & Hiroshima is that they saved thousands of American lives. Not saying I personally believe that justifies it, but that's what I've often heard/read when folks back Truman on this one.
That's high school textbook claptrap.

 
The usual justification I've heard for Nagasaki & Hiroshima is that they saved thousands of American lives. Not saying I personally believe that justifies it, but that's what I've often heard/read when folks back Truman on this one.
That's high school textbook claptrap.
:shrug:

Just relating what I most often see used to justify it. It's certainly not from my memory of HS textbooks, as that was almost 40 years ago and I'm lucky if I can recall what I did yesterday.

 
3. Harry S. Truman- OK, I have a lot to write here, so bear with me.

The Good

When Truman took over the Presidency in 1945, he was, with the exception of Andrew Johnson, the least man ready for the job. And throughout his presidency, he was forced to make a number of important decisions for the future of the United States. Let's look at these:

1. Almost immediately upon FDR's death, the Soviet Union attempted to renege on their previous agreement to allow the US a part of the governance of Berlin, in exchange for control of two provinces west of Berlin. Stalin declared that the US had violated the Yalta agreement (though he never specified how) and thus the Russians, once they conquered Berlin, would not allow the entry of American, British, or French troops. This was effectively the first action of the Cold War. Truman was advised by the State Department to allow the Soviet Union to have its way in the spirit of good fellowship. The US Army leadership agreed, not wanting to risk armed conflict with the Soviets. (Although it must be noted that a strong exception to the Army's position was held by George S. Patton, who would have liked nothing more than to send the Third Army straight into Eastern Europe, but I don't know if this desire on his part ever reached Truman.) There is no doubt in my mind that, had Henry Wallace still been the Vice President of the USA in 1944 and thus President in 1945, Berlin would have been surrendered, and world history would have been radically different and for the worse. Truman stood his ground. At Potsdam, he told Stalin that under no circumstances would he give up American rights in Berlin, and any attempt by the Soviets to refuse those rights would mean war. Stalin backed down. It was the first of several Cold War victories for Harry Truman.

2. Truman, who had no inkling of the Manhattan Project as VP, authorized the use of two atomic bombs, one on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki. As already evidenced in this thread, this seems to be regarded as Truman's most important legacy. I would argue that, given his other great achievements which we'll get to, it should not be, but obviously it is important, so I will address it:

First, let me note that the use of atomic weapons in World War II were no less moral than the firebombing of cities such as Tokyo, Berlin, and Dresden. In all of these cases, civilians were targeted and killed as an attempt to terrify the population of the enemy in order to get them to surrender quickly (which is the object of war.) The United States has continued this tactic in every war we have fought since World War II: in Korea, Vietnam, right up to our invasion of Iraq. In the last decade or so we have used drone warfare, which theoretically should be more humane because the targets are far more specified, yet these are condemned as well, mainly because civilians are inevitably killed. One can make the argument that all civilian deaths are immoral, but it's a very small jump from that position to simply state that all war is immoral- the pacifist position.

Harry Truman was no pacifist. He became President at a time when the USA was engaged in a life or death struggle which we did not initiate. He was given military weapons to use in that struggle and he used them. Many historians make the argument that we would have lost many more lives invading Japan, but I don't need to make that argument here because, frankly, Truman didn't really consider it. He wanted to win quickly so he used the bombs. It was the proper decision. (Nagasaki presents a few more moral problems than does Hiroshima IMO; a good argument could be made that after Hiroshima, just the threat of Nagasaki could have brought the Japanese to surrender. But that is hindsight.)

As far as the repercussions: Japan as a nation is surely better off for being forced to surrender. Although the losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, an invasion of Japan, along with a destruction of their industry and infrastructure, would have led to a much worse horror which, unlike Germany, I'm not sure they would have ever recovered from. Obviously, American lives were saved. And it should also be noted that, without the atomic bombs, the Soviets would have participated in the invasion of Japan, and it's safe to say that Stalin would have never left.

More problematic is the proliferation of nuclear weapons which has occurred ever since, and which we are still dealing with today. But even had for some reason Truman refused to use them in Japan, I don't see how the genie gets put back in the bottle.

There is a lot more to write about the "good" of Truman, but having made the atomic bomb argument, I'll stop there and address the other issues a little bit later.

 
So you are willing to condemn Eisenhower as a bad President because his actions led to the Vietnam War and the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Even though there was no way for him to predict it?
I'm totally lost on your criteria. The consequences are unimportant, as long as they did stuff?

 
So you are willing to condemn Eisenhower as a bad President because his actions led to the Vietnam War and the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Even though there was no way for him to predict it?
I'm totally lost on your criteria. The consequences are unimportant, as long as they did stuff?
You have now figured out what executive branch lovers who place priorities on active governance use as criteria, yes. It's part of the No Labels/Do Something crowd that I'm pretty sure tim is a part of.

It's not a slam, it just seems so.

 
Polk also made a run at Cuba, offered a load of money to Spain for it. It was going to be slave. Polk himself was an active slave holder and had plantations in TN & MS.

The north taking the prime part of the war with Mexico and making it free even though it was below the 1820 line and then Polk rejecting the Wilmot Proviso pretty much killed whatever hope there was of peace. He was the opposite of Fillmore who was always conscious of preserving the peace. Holding to the 1820 compromise would have gone a long way towards doing that. Admittedly Cuba could have balanced things but Polk was playing chicken with a bloody civil war. He and Buchanan belong in the bottom 10.
Is there any way this country stops slavery without a bloody civil war? Continually giving concessions to slave owners is not exactly the best of ideas.
The civil war was awful, the worst we've ever been in, so yeah personally I think it would have been better without it. Not making calls here but the CW was the beginning of 1. intervention for idealistic causes, the sort of thing we've seen constantly ever since (all of them), and 2. nation building.

Don't get me wrong about my feelings about such wars but let's take a long view on US history. Arguably though this really did start under Polk with the Mex-Am War, but as I said that led right to the Civil War.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Polk also made a run at Cuba, offered a load of money to Spain for it. It was going to be slave. Polk himself was an active slave holder and had plantations in TN & MS.

The north taking the prime part of the war with Mexico and making it free even though it was below the 1820 line and then Polk rejecting the Wilmot Proviso pretty much killed whatever hope there was of peace. He was the opposite of Fillmore who was always conscious of preserving the peace. Holding to the 1820 compromise would have gone a long way towards doing that. Admittedly Cuba could have balanced things but Polk was playing chicken with a bloody civil war. He and Buchanan belong in the bottom 10.
No Polk belongs in the top 10. I'm not so sure he belongs above Reagan and Monroe, but he is a single digiter.
Mmmmm, no, I don't think so.

 
So you are willing to condemn Eisenhower as a bad President because his actions led to the Vietnam War and the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Even though there was no way for him to predict it?
I'm totally lost on your criteria. The consequences are unimportant, as long as they did stuff?
In terms of ranking, consequences of actions are only important if the President in question is aware of their possibility- OR- if they occur during his presidency.

 
So you are willing to condemn Eisenhower as a bad President because his actions led to the Vietnam War and the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Even though there was no way for him to predict it?
I'm totally lost on your criteria. The consequences are unimportant, as long as they did stuff?
In terms of ranking, consequences of actions are only important if the President in question is aware of their possibility- OR- if they occur during his presidency.
Pfft Polk was totally aware of the possibility of CW, presidents had been aware of it for a long time. That's one reason he was so desperate to acquire Cuba, to satisfy the South. Look at Van Buren, he assiduously avoided it. And he also knew that expansion meant possible expansion of slavery. So he resisted expansion unless a plan could be arranged that would provide stability.

Eisenhower is different because he went into Vietnam with 500 soldiers, that doesn't mean he knew JFK would turn it onto a full blown land war, it wasn't inevitable that JFK and LBJ would ramp things up to 100,000 or whatever it was. On Mosadegh, yeah he probably should have thought that one through. OTOH as you know he had pressure from the Brits and his own State/CIA.

Dragging in Ike is a real mistake here because he was known for saying that the question is isn't what are you going to do, it's what are you going to do next.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
3. Harry S. Truman- OK, I have a lot to write here, so bear with me.

The Good

When Truman took over the Presidency in 1945, he was, with the exception of Andrew Johnson, the least man ready for the job. And throughout his presidency, he was forced to make a number of important decisions for the future of the United States. Let's look at these:

...
I like Harry, but ranking him at 3 and so far above FDR is absolutely bazonker nuts. Overall though love the post. You may have a point about Tru being in the right place at the right time at Potsdam over FDR, but I don't think that's enough to vault him, as still FDR is a giant and Harry took on the last quarter of his legacy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you are willing to condemn Eisenhower as a bad President because his actions led to the Vietnam War and the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Even though there was no way for him to predict it?
I'm totally lost on your criteria. The consequences are unimportant, as long as they did stuff?
Yeah. Tim loves action, even if it is/was clearly wrong as long as the heart was in the right place .

 
The usual justification I've heard for Nagasaki & Hiroshima is that they saved thousands of American lives. Not saying I personally believe that justifies it, but that's what I've often heard/read when folks back Truman on this one.
That's high school textbook claptrap.
And yet it is a far stronger arguement than anything you raised. I can see an arguement against the second bomb, but regardless the bombs ended the war much sooner and thus with at least a lot less American casualties than without dropping them.

 
4. Theodore Roosevelt

The Good

...
Agreed, love Teddy in the Top 4, he belongs.

However as an historical footnote - I give you, the President that never was - President Garret Hobart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garret_Hobart

Hobart was McKinley's VP but he was taken ill and died. The VP slot was vacant for like two years before Teddy came in but Hobart was destined for something if fate had not intervened.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top